ITEM 11 LOCAL PLAN PANEL

Report may be of interest to: local councils and residents in the vicinity of the Northern Expansion Area of the City

POLICY EA6: NORTHERN EXPANSION AREA (SITE MK3) - POSSIBLE LINK ROAD FROM ROAD TO LANE

Accountable officer: David Hackforth (Head of Planning & Transport) Authors: Caroline Clapson (Senior Planning Officer) – MK 252318; David Lawson (Senior Engineer) – MK252510

1. Background

1.1. At its meeting of 27 September 2001, the Local Plan Panel considered objections to Policy EA6 Northern Expansion Area. As well as agreeing the Council’s response to the objections, the Panel asked officers to investigate the implications of requiring a link road across the site, from the Giffard Park roundabout on Wolverton Road to Little Linford Lane. If desirable, such a requirement could then be added to Policy EA6. 1.2. This report examines the various options for the link road, the likely impacts on the surrounding area, and on the development of the Northern Expansion Area (NEA).

2. Existing situation

2.1. The existing junction between Little Linford Lane (LLL) and Wolverton Road (WR) is congested at times. The rationale behind a link road is to relieve that congestion, by providing an alternative route for traffic from north of to and from the City - e.g. from Little Linford, , Stoke and via the B526 from . A link road might also take some traffic from the Poets Estate in Newport Pagnell into the City. 2.2. There are 3 possible options for how the highway network might work with the addition of a new link road:

· Option 1: provide link road through the NEA and close LLL between (south of) the diversion point and Newport Pagnell · Option 2: provide link road through the NEA but leave the existing LLL open · Option 3: provide link road through the NEA and close LLL north of the new link road. 3. Issues and Choices

3.1. Table 1 over sets out the full range of advantages and disadvantages of the 3 options. These are discussed in more detail below.

Table 1: Advantages and Disadvantages of Link Road Options Advantages Disadvantages Option 1 Option 1 · Takes a small amount of through traffic away · Poets Estate traffic will still use LLL/WR junction. from LLL/WR junction. · May encourage more through traffic from the north · Improves access to motel from the City. through the NEA via Little Linford, , Gayhurst, with resultant adverse impacts on residents. · Any traffic needing to go to the Poets Estate from the north (Little Linford) e.g local schools, will need to take a longer route. Option 2 Option 2 · Takes some through traffic away from · Most Poets Estate traffic will still use LLL/WR LLL/WR junction. junction. · Some Poets Estate traffic may use Link Road. · May encourage more through traffic from the north · Improves access to motel from City. through the NEA and LLL/WR junction via Little Linford, Haversham, Gayhurst, with resultant adverse impacts on residents. · Would encourage traffic to access M1 via the Motorway Services Option 3 Option 3 · No through traffic so could reduce traffic · Cuts off Little Linford village from Newport Pagnell - through Little Linford and LLL/WR junction. lengthy alternatives via Haversham or Gayhurst. · Some Poets Estate traffic may divert and use · Cuts off Dovecote Lake / fishing facilities from NP and Link Road. City, resulting in users needing to take more circuitous · Improves access to motel from the City. routes to these amenities. · Would result in longer journeys to work for workers at Service Station who live north of road closure point. · Encourages traffic to access M1 via Services. · Would adversely affect Bus Service 81 (Two Mile Ash- Newport Pagnell – ).

Option 1 3.2. The congestion and queuing on the LLL arm of the LLL/WR junction is caused mainly by traffic from the Poets Estate (Pennycress Way, Wordsworth Avenue and Linford Avenue) and Cromwell Avenue. A small amount of congestion at this junction is caused by traffic from further afield on LLL. 3.3. The flow of traffic on LLL north of the Motorway Service Area (MSA) is equivalent to only 16% of the traffic using this junction. 16% is the theoretical reduction in flow that would be achieved at the junction by diverting LLL. The reduction could be significantly lower than this because not all of the traffic north of the MSA (not all of the 16%) will have come from, or be going to the LLL/WR junction. 3.4. None of the traffic from the housing estates at the southern end of LLL (about 700 peak hour movements) would move away from this junction as a result of this option. In fact it is possible that some additional traffic from the Poets Estate area may use the junction if it is perceived to be slightly less congested (i.e. the newly-created spare capacity at the junction, as a result of the link road, would be filled.) Option 2 3.5. In this option it is likely that some of the 16% referred to earlier would divert away from the LLL/WR junction. It is also possible that some traffic from the Poets Estate may divert to the link road, thus reducing congestion further. However the amount of traffic from the Poets Estate diverting to the link road is likely to be limited. This is because the additional distance which would need to be travelled, together with the right turn onto LLL needed for most traffic from the area (with the exception of residents of Cromwell Avenue), is likely to be a disincentive to using the link road option. Taking a right turn onto LLL is likely to be particularly off-putting to motorists during peak hours. 3.6. It is more likely, however, that with two choices of route into the City, traffic would split and use both, thus not improving the situation at the LLL/WR junction to any significant extent. This is because some of the 16% referred to earlier would still use the LLL/WR junction and also because, as with Option 1, any spare capacity created at the junction would be temporary. The suppressed demand for using this route would be released once people perceive that the junction is less congested than it used to be.

Option 3 3.7. This option would be the least attractive. There would be likely to be some reduction in traffic using the LLL/WR junction because there would be no through traffic from north of LLL and some Poets Estate traffic could divert to use the new link road, as discussed above. However, this option would cut off Little Linford village from Newport Pagnell, necessitating lengthy route alternatives via Haversham or Gayhurst. This would be contrary to PPG13, which requires local authorities to plan the road network to avoid lengthy and indirect routes. One objection to this scheme from the public would be sufficient to rule it out as an option.

4. Impacts Arising from All Options

4.1. The design of the road linking to or diverting LLL has two basic options, with different impacts on the design and layout of the NEA: · As a District Distributor · As a Local Distributor

Option A: Link road designed as District Distributor 4.2. The link road would be designed and built as a District Distributor, as an extension to the V10. The design standards would not necessarily be identical to V10 but they would be very similar. This option could easily accommodate through traffic as well as traffic from the new development in the NEA. 4.3. This type of road would effectively split the NEA in half. Whilst there may need to be a split between residential and employment uses within the NEA, this type of road could continue the types of problems associated with the grid roads, i.e. severance, noise, lack of surveillance/security etc. 4.4. In design terms, the creation of a new road that is not an integral part of the development would be contrary to current guidance and the new approach to development. 4.5. Even a road designed as a District Distributor should, according to policy T9 (Table T1) of the Deposit Local Plan, "discourage through traffic". This would not be the case, as the scheme would deliberately be encouraging through traffic. 4.6. This option also involves a higher land take and could therefore reduce the amount of development within the NEA.

Option B: Link road designed as a Local Distributor 4.7. This option would incorporate the road into the development of the NEA thereby following current design guidance. However, the main access road through the estate would still be designed to higher than normal standards. Issues of severance, noise and security would be minimised and the land take would also be reduced compared to Option A. 4.8. This type of road design would accord more with the Council's aspirations to promote walking/cycling but it would not allow unrestricted frontage access, traffic calming by design (or a 20mph limit) or tighter 'home zone' type developments. 4.9. A potential drawback to this option is that, to avoid the problems associated with Option A, through traffic would have a more tortuous and less desirable route through the NEA. Staying on Little Linford Lane may be more desirable than diverting through the NEA, so notwithstanding the discussion under Options 1-3 (above), it is questionable whether this type of road would have any significant effect on relieving congestion at the LLL/WR junction.

Impact on rural roads and communities 4.10. As a result of diverting LLL using any of the options, traffic entering from Little Linford and beyond would arrive at a point where delays and congestion are less than at the existing LLL/WR junction (the Giffard Park roundabout). At first this may seem to be a good thing, but it is likely to remove some of the discouragement that currently exists for drivers to enter Milton Keynes via this route. The fact that LLL would also connect directly to the V10 adds to the likelihood that traffic flows through Little Linford and Haversham, in particular, would increase as a result of this ‘more attractive' route into Milton Keynes.

Impact on Motel 4.11. It is likely that any link road would need to go through the motel site, at the northern end of the NEA. This would improve access from the City to the motel, which is only accessible via the M1 at present but as a consequence would encourage more traffic to use the existing (unauthorised) access to the M1. This would also be likely to generate additional traffic through the NEA, which would be undesirable for the reasons given earlier. 4.12. It has been noted that although the motel is shown within the NEA on the Proposals Map, it is not included on the illustrative plan (EA3) in the Written Statement. The illustrative plan should be corrected to match the Proposals Map.

Impact on Wolverton Road/V10 junction (Giffard Park Roundabout) 4.13. The diversion of some traffic away from the LLL/WR junction would result in the further loading of the WR/V10 junction. It is not clear at this stage what the impact of such loading would be and whether the junction has this spare capacity.

Planning Obligations 4.14. It is unlikely to be possible to justify the full costs of a link road through a planning obligation in relation to the NEA. The link road is not required in order to develop the NEA and would therefore be outside of legitimate planning obligations. The costs of construction for such a road would therefore reduce the Council’s ability to seek other benefits from the development, e.g. financial contributions towards local schools, improvements towards local health facilities and adjoining linear park and affordable housing.

5. Conclusions

5.1. Option 1 is likely to provide only a marginal reduction in the congestion at the LLL/WR junction. 5.2. Option 2 has the potential for a range of impacts on the LLL/WR junction, between no significant (noticeable) reduction in congestion, which is more likely, and a slightly greater reduction in congestion than Option 1. 5.3. Option 3 should be discounted because it will cut off Little Linford from Newport Pagnell and will lead to more lengthy and indirect patterns of travel, contrary to current government advice. 5.4. However, Options 1 and 2 would both militate against achieving a satisfactory form of development for the NEA and could lead to an additional point of congestion being created at the new junction, particularly if the link road is constructed as a District Distributor. Building a road of a lower standard but better integrated with the NEA development, more would be even less likely to lead to a reduction in congestion at the LLL/WR junction. 5.5. Both options could also result in increased levels of traffic through the villages of Little Linford and Haversham, due to the route connecting directly to the V10 at the Giffard Park roundabout. This would adversely affect residents of these villages. 5.6. Additional traffic generation and greater unauthorised access to the M1 could also result. Both options would also be likely to adversely impact on the ability of the Council to seek wider benefits from the development of the NEA for the local community. Because Options 1 and 2 facilitate through traffic, they would be contrary to Policy T9 of the Deposit Local Plan, which aims to discourage through traffic on roads other than Primary Distributors. 5.7. Option 2 is more likely to secure a reduction in traffic congestion at the LLL/WR junction than Option 1. This reduction will be more likely if the road is built as a District Distributor. 5.8. However, any reduction in congestion is likely to be minimal and will only be temporary, as the spare capacity at the junction created by the link road will soon be filled. Any reduction in congestion will also have been achieved at the expense of a better quality development for the NEA and will have reduced the opportunity to seek more tangible and positive benefits for the local area and its residents, e.g. affordable housing, improvements to doctors surgery etc. 5.9. An alternative approach to reducing traffic congestion in this area would be to investigate the signalisation of the existing LLL/WR junction. This could be funded by the development of the NEA and may bring other benefits such as signal controlled pedestrian crossing points. The Panel may wish officers to pursue this course of action as part of the negotiations on the current planning application on the Rocla site (01/00999/OUT) and master plan for the NEA.

6. Recommendations

6.1. It is recommended that: a) There should be no requirement for a link road from Wolverton Road to Little Linford Lane in Policy EA6 for the Northern Expansion Area b) An investigation of signalisation of the existing LLL/WR junction should be requested as part of the negotiations on the current planning application on the Rocla site (01/00999/OUT) and master plan for the NEA. c) The boundary of the Northern Expansion Area, as shown on the indicative Plan EA3 in the Written Statement should be amended to include the motel site as per the Proposals Map.